(1.) KASHMIR Singh is undergoing imprisonment for life and is confined in Central Jail, Bhatinda. He has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the punishments imposed upon him by respondents No 4 and 5 for the jail offences alleged to have been Committed by him. As per averments made in the petition, on 11-8-1997, the jail authorities found him careless in performing his duties and were of the view that he failed to make the requisite quantity of rope. He was held guilty for this offence on 13-8-1987. On a similar charge, he was again punished vide order dated 7-11-1988. The third jail offence was alleged to have been committed by him on 11-2-1990 when he was confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana though he was not even aware as to the nature of the offence. The punishments awarded to him were illegal, void and arbitrary. No enquiry as envisaged under Section 45 and 46 of the Prisons Act was conducted nor any opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend himself. His thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers which may have been used for recording his confession. He was not aware whether the concurrence of the Sessions Judge concerned was obtained or not but he was never summoned by any Sessions Judge before granting the concurrence.
(2.) IN the return filed by respondent No. 4. it was submitted that the petitioner committed two jail offences one on 10-8-1987 and the other on 22-10-1987 but on both these occasions no punishment was awarded to him and he was given a chance to reform himself. On 19-2-199 he committed a jail offence by assaulting Deputy Superintendent Factory with a wooden stick when he was sitting near the factory gate. The Deputy Superintendent of the factory was rescued by Majit Singh, Kesar Singh and Warder Nachhattar Singh. The statements of these witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and he was given a chance to cross examine them. Medical Officer of the jail was also examined. Keeping in view the statements of the witnesses, the petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture of 12 days earned remission. Judicial concurrence of the punishment was obtained from Session Judge, Ludhiana. The punishment was thus validly awarded to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Prisons Act.
(3.) SO far as the offences committed by the petitioner on 10-8-1987 and 22-10-1987 are concerned no punishment was awarded and the Superintendent, Central Jail gave him a chance to reform himself on the assurance given by him that he will not repeat the offence in future. The only jail punishment awarded to the petitioner was with respect to the offence committed by him on 19-2-1990 when he assaulted Deputy Superintendent Factory with a stick. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail the punishment awarded to the petitioner for this offence on the ground that proper procedure was not followed before awarding the puni. shment but simply contended that there was no judicial appraisal of the punishment by the learned Sessions Judge concerned and as such the punishment was liable to be quashed. In view of Sunil Batra's case reported as AIR 1980 SC 579 no punishment can be awarded to a prisoner without judicial appraisal of the Sessions Judge and it is now well settled that a Sessions Judge is required to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and then to approve the punishment. Appraisal means the estimation of guilt and in order to appraise the order of punish. ment, the Sessions Judge is required to estimate the worth of the same.